notion_retrieve_user

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds critical context beyond what the input schema provides: it specifies that this function requires upgrading to the Notion Enterprise plan and using an Organization API key to avoid permission errors. This is valuable information about authentication requirements and potential limitations. However, it does not describe the return format or error handling in detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides crucial additional context. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a read operation with specific requirements) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and key behavioral constraints. However, it does not describe the return values or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect from the tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (user_id and format) comprehensively. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve a specific user') and resource ('by user_id in Notion'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_list_all_users (which lists all users) and notion_retrieve_bot_user (which retrieves a bot user). The verb 'retrieve' is precise and differentiates from creation or update operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool (to retrieve a specific user by ID) and includes important prerequisites (Notion Enterprise plan and Organization API key). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as notion_list_all_users for listing users instead of retrieving a specific one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.